Glimmer of hope for Vui Kong

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Singapore has announced that new laws will be drafted by the year-end to abolish the mandatory death penalty for some cases of drug trafficking and murder.

ON Nov 14, 2008, Sandakan (Sabah)-born Yong Vui Kong was convicted of trafficking 47.27g of heroin and sentenced to death in Singapore.

He was 19 when he was arrested at about midnight on June 13, 2007 near the Meritus Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB).

The drugs were found in two packets in a Malaysian-registered car MBK 5317 which the prosecution said Yong had earlier collected from a man in Taman Sentosa in Johor Baru.

Yong then went to look for his friend, one Chai Chor Hsiang, and asked him to drive the car into Singapore.

At the trial, Yong made it clear that Chai had no knowledge of the packages hidden under the driver’s seat. Yong’s defence was that he thought he was collecting debts from his boss’ debtors and that his boss had made him promise not to open the packages.

Yong said even though he was suspicious, he did not think that they contained drugs.

Yong, who initially withdrew his appeal to the Singapore’s apex court, was later allowed to appeal and he did make several other but unsuccessful attempts at the Court of Appeal.

Among others, he unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence.

He failed too in his arguments that his prosecution contravened the constitutional provision on equal protection when the Public Prosecutor decided to discontinue three capital charges against one Chia Choon Leng whom Yong had identified as the man in Johor Baru who on June 12, 2007 had asked him to deliver the “gifts” to Singapore.

Yong had also sought clemency from the Singapore President but it was turned down.

Yong’s plight attracted the sympathy of many people, both within and without Malaysia.

Described by his lawyers as “impoverished and vulnerable”, many felt that Yong should be given a second chance as he was too young and naïve to appreciate the gravity of the act when he was arrested.

There appears to be one glimmer of hope for his death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.

On July 9 this year, Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean announced in Parliament that new laws would be drafted by the year-end to abolish the mandatory death penalty for some cases of drug trafficking and murder.

Nefarious act of betrayal

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

Party-hopping is a potent threat to parliamentary democracy and it is hoped that politicians will come to grips with this issue in a bipartisan manner.

THE great Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was known for party-hopping. In 1904, he changed parties from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party, and was made Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1905. He officially returned to the Tories in 1925 after he failed in two successive attempts to win a seat as an independent.

On record, his reasons for defecting to the Liberals were the Conservatives' reluctance to undertake social reform and their protectionist policy of favouring trade with the British Empire. But on the other hand, the Liberals were then an up-and-coming party, and his calculated move obviously did catapult him to high office at the rather young age of 31.

Of course, admirers and detractors of Churchill would respectively describe his act as one of political conscience and opportunism. But that is immaterial as until today, the British parliamentary system still does not proscribe party-hopping which also has different nomenclatures such as party-crossing, party-switching, party-leaping, floor-crossing and waka-jumping.

Like any democracy, regardless of it being an established or an incipient one, Malaysia too faces this perennial problem of party-hopping and elected representatives resigning from their political parties to become an independent.

Hence, we are not short of inveterate party-hoppers. One of them is Sabah State Reform Party (Star) chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan. Prior to this, he had joined Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), the Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS), Angkatan Keadilan Rakyat (now defunct Akar), United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Organisation (Upko) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

It is, therefore, not surprising for such politicians to be given various undignified names such as political frogs, traitors, lepers and chameleons.

Johor Baru church rejoices over RM500,000 govt aid

One for the albumn

The Star

MALACCA: The Holy Light Church (English) received a cheque for RM500,000 from the Government for the construction of its building in Jalan Persiaran Ponderosa in Johor Baru.

It was good news for church members who were having their annual camp at Puteri Resort here when they received the cheque from congregation member and senior lawyer Roger Tan.

Tan said they were grateful that the cheque was received so soon after Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin approved the grant.

Tan, who is also a Commissioner in the National Water Services Commission, was at the signing of the Water Services Restructuring Water Agreement on May 23 in Putrajaya when he approached Muhyiddin about the church being in urgent need of funds to complete its RM4mil building.

The building, which houses a worship hall, a multi-purpose hall and meeting rooms, is due to be completed in October for the church’s 60th anniversary celebrations.

Bar must be apolitical

The Star
by Roger Tan

I KNEW this was coming because as I said it would be painful for some lawyers to read what I wrote in “Unswayed by fear or favour” (Sunday Star, May 20).

I am indeed not wrong with my prognostication.

However, I am surprised that it was even necessary for the eight Loyarburoks to come together to give a 2,700-word response to something they felt were just mere fallacies being spun by me.

In a tweet sent out early yesterday morning, one of the eight, K. Shanmuga tweeted that their joint statement, “Bar’s resolution proper”, (The Star, May 23) was issued because my aforesaid article had got all of them so annoyed.

Hence, because I emphatise with them, I would oblige them in the best tradition of the Bar with a short reply which should suffice.

Firstly, my concern on the independence of the 80 monitors from the Bar is not totally unfounded. Of the 80 monitors, I personally know at least one whom I follow on Twitter.